2025:HHC:8023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4493 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawanish Kr. Shukla & Mr. Abhay Kaushal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein who is working at present as a JBT at Government Primary School, Chandru, Education Block, Tissa, District Chamba, H.P. has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation for transfer from aforesaid station to some other station on account of having completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:8023 necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure of posting but yet pending representation, if not already decided shall be decided expeditiously. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that petitioner herein was appointed as JBT on contract basis in the year 2019. Though in the year 2023, petitioner was regularised but yet he was not transferred from aforesaid station. Since 31.12.2021, petitioner is working at the present place of posting, meaning thereby he has already completed normal tenure of posting i.e. three years. Though at this stage, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis cannot be taken into consideration for calculating the minimum period of three years, however, this Court is not perused to agree with afore submission of Mr. Panwar. Transfer policy, if perused in its entirety, nowhere makes any distinction between employee working on contract or regular basis rather it simply provides for three years period at one station of an employee. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present 3 2025:HHC:8023 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation 16.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 4. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon, taking note of the transfer policy which admittedly makes an employee entitled for transfer after completion of his/her normal tenure of posting after three years. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27, 2025 (Rupsi)